In matters such as climate, human health, or other existential worries, no one day goes on without us being served the news of an imminent disaster, a scandal, or a terrorizing situation.

So, recently, antieverything groups were delighted that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate, the World most used total weed-killer, into the Category 2A: Probably carcinogenic to humans, which is the last level before the certainty that a substance causes cancer[1].

Toxicology evaluations depend highly on assessors. That is why reviews have to be made by independent bodies.

And these experts do not necessarily agree between them.

An institution dependent on the World Health Organization (WHO), IARC makes assessments that are based on the data which it finds relevant, then publishes its classifications so that countries can take the measures which they consider adequate. Its mission is to promote the international collaboration in the cancer research as well as to identify the causes of the cancer, which will allow to adopt precautionary measures … As many of these institutions it exists only because there is a one-sided battle to engage against clearly identified threats and risks, in this case cancer.

However, it is the responsibility of the national regulation authorities to manage risks, for example by setting the limits of use of a given substance, such as the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) and the Maximal Residue Limit (MRL) for pesticides in various foodstuffs.

Experts in the USA (EPA) and in Europe do not classify glyphosate as a probable carcinogen as IARC does[2]; nevertheless, neither the American EPA nor the German BfR are subservient of the industry, quite the opposite.

Expert against expert it is necessary to distinguish between those who have to set up a risk management and those whose mission is merely to blow the whistle, without bearing any responsibility. Thanks to the seconds, anti-everything groups take pleasure as soon as a piece of news is published which suits in their theses and which allows to demonize those who are not on their side. This is called confirmation bias.

Thus, banishment of the product in question will be demanded, and those who have a different opinion, –including EPA, BfR and the likes– will be accused of incompetence, of negligence, of breaching the elementary morality, even of lying or being corrupt. And it helps a lot if the main economic player is a loathed American multinational. The baker has the right to make his living by making and by selling his bread; but a multinational company can only be a devilish actor of a capitalist or neo-liberal plot which leads the World to its decay and to a disaster. The tens of thousands people who work in such company are either bastards who need to be punished, or alienated persons who should be set free.

The substance in question, glyphosate, turned out to be one of the safest herbicide for health and for the environment. Its use grew spectacularly after the introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMO) so that they resist to its action: corn, soybean, canola, cotton, alfalfa, sugar beet. Dampening this undeniable success, certain weed developed quite naturally their own glyphosate resistance, without needing the help of human biotechnology. This is why GMOs that are resistant to other weed-killers (Dicamba, 2,4-D, quite old molecules) are now coming to the market to provide the farmers with a solution to this unwanted resistance. Learning and development never stop.

To the antieverything and the advocates for an alternative World, it is a clear demonstration of a criminal act to have:

1. a process which works
2. success, and, worse,
3. a commercial success.

The toxicity of beer doesn’t matter to them, that of glyphosate much more, because it enables them to denounce a big and nasty industry.

As Monsanto’s representatives rightly avoid doing, I shall not drink Roundup. Those who laugh about an alleged industry incoherence in such safety matter are either imbecile or they argue in bad faith, or probably both. To say that in normal use conditions a product will not present an unsupportable risk does not mean that it is harmless in all situation.

Factual reminder.
According to the current European regulation the ADI of glyphosate is 0.3 mg per kg and day; for my 99 kg that makes 29.7 mg per day. In corn, for example, the MRL is 5 mg by kg. I would need to eat every day of all my life 6 kg of corn, – in the form of ears, polenta, or tortillas– which would constantly contain glyphosate at this concentration limit (what is very improbable; usually zero or a small fraction of the limit is reported) to remain sure with at a probability of more than 95 % that if I develop a cancer it will not be due to this molecule. Please re-read this paragraph until well understood.

How unbearable is the risk to which I am exposed that justifies the demands of the antieverything-pro-alternatives?

ADI and MRL are limits in which sizeable safety factors are include. If the same would be applied to traffic then, on speedway, vehicles should remain at more than one kilometer behind the preceding one. At least there would be no visible traffic jam, but also no traffic, and no accidents between two stressed drivers.

Never forget Paracelsus: “Alle Dinge sind Gift, und nichts ohne Gift; allein die Dosis macht das ein Ding kein Gift ist.“

 

[1] Ethanol in alcoholic beverages, salted fish as Chinese prepare it, and solar irradiation are in category 1.

[2] German experts made a re-evaluation in 2013-2014:
http://www.bfr.bund.de/en/the_bfr_has_finalised_its_draft_report_for_the_re_evaluation_of_glyphosate-188632.html.
A decision to renew the approval of glyphosate in Europe must be taken before the end of 2015.

Merci de partager et de diffuser cet article !